The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a maternal grandmother can seek maintenance for her grandchild under Section 125 CrPC, without being appointed as the minor's legal guardian. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 420]

Emphasising that Section 125 CrPC must be interpreted to advance social justice, the bench of Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal observed:

"The provision under Section 125 of the CrPC is to be interpreted in a manner so as to advance social justice and to extend the benefit to the helpless persons. The Family Court failed to take note of the fact that it is the minor whose rights are required to be enforced and not the next friend i.e. maternal grandmother. The Family Court is required to advance the benefit of provision to the minor daughter irrespective of person through whom she claims his entitlement to maintenance". 

A criminal revision was filed by a minor daughter against the order of the Family Court wherein her application under Section 125 CrPC seeking interim pendente lite maintenance from her father through her maternal grandmother was rejected on the ground that the said grandmother was not the legal guardian. 

The counsel for the minor daughter claimed that her parents were living separately due to strained relations and that she was born in September 2015 and her mother died due to illness in May 2018. She claimed that the father did not accept her as his daughter and therefore she was living with her maternal grandmother, who was not in a position to maintain her properly. Aggrieved, she filed an application seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. 

However, the Family Court dismissed the application on the ground that the maternal grandmother is not a legal guardian and, therefore, to file an application for maintenance, she has to first file an application seeking legal guardianship of the minor daughter. 

The court noted that there was no dispute on the fact that the petitioner was the legitimate daughter of the respondent. The court also noted that in her application, the minor daughter had clearly stated that after her mother's demise, her maternal grandmother had been taking care of her. 

Referring to the Supreme Court case of Nagaiah v Chowdamma, the bench reiterated that the next friend need not necessarily be a duly appointed guardian as specified under the Hindu Guardianship Act. Further, the bench relied on three decisions by the High Courts of Madras, Kerala, and Punjab and Haryana to reiterate that:

"a person who has sufficient interest in the minor can move an application seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, and the procedure provided under Order XXXII of the CPC or the strict rule of guardianship is not required to be complied with necessarily". 

The Court noted that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is a beneficial legislation and ought to be read purposively. Thus, the bench held that the Family Court committed an illegality by dismissing the application and remanded the matter back to the Family Court for fresh consideration. 

For Petitioner: Advocate Avinash Dubey 

For Respondent: Advocate Sanjay Jharia